Decay

[Justatruthseeker]

How many people believe that the EM radiation emitted by atoms comes out of thin air?

Or do you believe it is lost from the atom leading to its eventual decay?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

How many people believe that the EM radiation emitted by atoms comes out of thin air?

Or do you believe it is lost from the atom leading to its eventual decay?

I don't get how EM radiation comes from nothing, it may disperse through the air as background radiation, but it comes from somewhere if we're talking about Physics that is.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't get how EM radiation comes from nothing, it may disperse through the air as background radiation, but it comes from somewhere if we're talking about Physics that is.

Just wondering as I’ve had discussions with someone that seems to think an atom emitting EM radiation has nothing to do with its energy loss and eventual decay. Despite understanding the decay is due to energy loss.

So I am wondering if anyone believes the energy for EM radiation comes out of thin air or from the atom...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Just wondering as I’ve had discussions with someone that seems to think an atom emitting EM radiation has nothing to do with its energy loss and eventual decay. Despite understanding the decay is due to energy loss.

So I am wondering if anyone believes the energy for EM radiation comes out of thin air or from the atom...

I didn't suggest EM radiation comes out of thin air - I said it comes out of atoms when electrons drop to lower orbitals. It is also produced in gamma decay. IOW, it doesn't lead to radioactive decay but it can be a product of radioactive decay.

To the best of my knowledge, that is the current physical consensus and has been for many years. But I'm not a physicist - if you think I'm wrong about it, by all means provide some credible citations or references that will show it.

But I would appreciate it if you don't misrepresent my position, implicitly or otherwise.

 

[JackRT]

I didn't suggest EM radiation comes out of thin air - I said it comes out of atoms when electrons drop to lower orbitals. It is also produced in gamma decay. IOW, it doesn't lead to radioactive decay but it can be a product of radioactive decay.

That is accurate.

 

[Speedwell]

Just wondering as I’ve had discussions with someone that seems to think an atom emitting EM radiation has nothing to do with its energy loss and eventual decay. Despite understanding the decay is due to energy loss.

So I am wondering if anyone believes the energy for EM radiation comes out of thin air or from the atom...

The EM radiation emitted by an atom results from an electron moving from a higher energy level or "orbit" around the atom to a lower one. If the atom is stimulated in certain ways, an electron may move from its usual energy level to a higher one. Eventually the electron falls back into its usual place, emitting a photon of EM energy in the process. The "decay" spoken of in describing this process refers to the decay of the electron's orbit. It should not be confused with the radioactive decay of the atom's nucleus.

 

[JackRT]

The EM radiation emitted by an atom results from an electron moving from a higher energy level or "orbit" around the atom to a lower one. If the atom is stimulated in certain ways, an electron may move from its usual energy level to a higher one. Eventually the electron falls back into its usual place, emitting a photon of EM energy in the process. The "decay" spoken of in describing this process refers to the decay of the electron's orbit. It should not be confused with the radioactive decay of the atom's nucleus.

There are actually quantum energy states in the nucleus itself which can also lead to gamma ray emissions. My thesis was on "Gamma-gamma angular correlations in Gadalinium-153".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I didn't suggest EM radiation comes out of thin air - I said it comes out of atoms when electrons drop to lower orbitals. It is also produced in gamma decay. IOW, it doesn't lead to radioactive decay but it can be a product of radioactive decay.

To the best of my knowledge, that is the current physical consensus and has been for many years. But I'm not a physicist - if you think I'm wrong about it, by all means provide some credible citations or references that will show it.

But I would appreciate it if you don't misrepresent my position, implicitly or otherwise.

EM radiation occurs whether electrons drop to lower orbitals or not.

You need to ask yourself “why” an electron would drop to a lower orbital, or why it would jump to a higher one....

The energy state changes. It has lost or gained energy.

Since atoms are constantly emitting EM energy are you suggesting the electrons are constantly dripping to lower orbitals?

The physical consensus was based upon the belief the electron was a particle, now it is believed to be a wave or even a hole.

The physical consensus never overcomes logic. And besides, the physical consensus says EM radiation is emitted due to an electrons acceleration, changing orbitals is a secondary effect from loosing too much energy to radiation or gaining it from an outside source.

Your looking at the end result of emitting EM radiation, the decay of the particle. You should understand this from Relativity, since acceleration adds energy and the decay of the particle slows, as what is lost is offset by what is gained.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The EM radiation emitted by an atom results from an electron moving from a higher energy level or "orbit" around the atom to a lower one. If the atom is stimulated in certain ways, an electron may move from its usual energy level to a higher one. Eventually the electron falls back into its usual place, emitting a photon of EM energy in the process. The "decay" spoken of in describing this process refers to the decay of the electron's orbit. It should not be confused with the radioactive decay of the atom's nucleus.

That is his strawman that I am implying they are the same.

I say the loss of EM radiation is the “cause” of the radioactive decay as the binding energy is lowered over time. It is the cause of all decay, radioactive or not.

Just as acceleration adds energy and decay slows as what is lost as EM radiation is offset by the energy added during acceleration....

Hence clocks slow and twins age less.... and radioactive matter decays slower too....

 

[JackRT]

Since atoms are constantly emitting EM energy are you suggesting the electrons are constantly dripping to lower orbitals?

We cannot discern what is happening with individual atoms. Obviously they emit EM energy only when there is a quantum jump, not continuously. However even a tiny sample contains millions of atoms all emitting randomly. Consequently we have the "illusion" of constant EM radiation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We cannot discern what is happening with individual atoms. Obviously they emit EM energy only when there is a quantum jump, not continuously. However even a tiny sample contains millions of atoms all emitting randomly. Consequently we have the "illusion" of constant EM radiation.

Since you can’t discern what is happening, are you suggesting that atomic hydrogen thatcemits in radio waves has a single electron jumping up and down levels, despite being “neutral”?

Or is it more likely just the motion (acceleration) of the electron against the proton?

We already know acceleration adds energy, but it must first build up to the required quantum level before it can escape.

 

[Speedwell]

EM radiation occurs whether electrons drop to lower orbitals or not.

You need to ask yourself “why” an electron would drop to a lower orbital, or why it would jump to a higher one....

The energy state changes. It has lost or gained energy.

Since atoms are constantly emitting EM energy are you suggesting the electrons are constantly dripping to lower orbitals?

Yes, that is exactly what is happening. Electrons are constantly being stimulated into higher orbits and dropping down again, emitting a photon. This phenomenon is called "black body radiation." It is well understood and is entirely distinct from any radiation emitted by the decay of the atom itself.

The physical consensus was based upon the belief the electron was a particle, now it is believed to be a wave or even a hole.

"Now" if you mean since 1901.

Your looking at the end result of emitting EM radiation, the decay of the particle. You should understand this from Relativity, since acceleration adds energy and the decay of the particle slows, as what is lost is offset by what is gained.....

No, we know it from Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Strathos]

Well, air is made of atoms...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

EM radiation occurs whether electrons drop to lower orbitals or not.

It's either a drop to a lower orbital or gamma decay.

You need to ask yourself “why” an electron would drop to a lower orbital, or why it would jump to a higher one....

The energy state changes. It has lost or gained energy.

Since atoms are constantly emitting EM energy are you suggesting the electrons are constantly dripping to lower orbitals?

Yes. When an electron is excited to a higher orbital by absorbing a suitable quantum of energy, it will eventually drop back to the lower orbital and radiate a photon with that quantum of energy.

The physical consensus was based upon the belief the electron was a particle, now it is believed to be a wave or even a hole.

Not really; it's now considered to be none of those things, but can appear to behave like any of them, depending on the context.

But all this is a red-herring digression from the original point, which is that although the majority of ways of measuring time passing involve repeated measurement of movement over some specified distance, it can be done without measuring movement, for example by the half-life of radionuclides or the fading of a photograph in the sun.

The feature these methods have in common is that they involve measuring the sum of multiple stochastic events (instead of measuring movement).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, that is exactly what is happening. Electrons are constantly being stimulated into higher orbits and dropping down again, emitting a photon. This phenomenon is called "black body radiation." It is well understood and is entirely distinct from any radiation emitted by the decay of the atom itself.

"Now" if you mean since 1901.



No, we know it from Quantum Mechanics.

Black body radiation has never been observed outside of a cavity filled with soot or graphite....

“Black-body radiation is the thermal electromagnetic radiation within or surrounding a body in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment, or emitted by a black body (an opaque and non-reflective body).

So much for the claim that those atoms who’s electrons are jumping up and down between energy states are in thermal equilibrium with its environment...... were they such they would not be gaining and loosing energy.

Yes, I am aware they have fooled most into thinking blackbody radiation is commonly seen, but it doesn’t exist in nature. Just in laboratories in little soot or graphite lined boxes.....

 

[Speedwell]

Black body radiation has never been observed outside of a cavity filled with soot or graphite....

“Black-body radiation is the thermal electromagnetic radiation within or surrounding a body in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment, or emitted by a black body (an opaque and non-reflective body).

So much for the claim that those atoms who’s electrons are jumping up and down between energy states are in thermal equilibrium with its environment...... were they such they would not be gaining and loosing energy.

Yes, I am aware they have fooled most into thinking blackbody radiation is commonly seen, but it doesn’t exist in nature. Just in laboratories in little soot or graphite lined boxes.....

So what in this vast conspiracy to deny that black body radiation comes out of thin air in aid of? Who does it benefit? Who does it harm?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... So much for the claim that those atoms who’s electrons are jumping up and down between energy states are in thermal equilibrium with its environment...... were they such they would not be gaining and loosing energy.

The bolded part below explains how there can be electrons changing orbitals in systems in thermodynamic equilibrium:

"In thermodynamic equilibrium there are no net macroscopic flows of matter or of energy, either within a system or between systems" Wikipedia​

IOW, in general, thermodynamic equilibrium is a macroscopic phenomenon; thermal, mechanical, and diffusive equilibria are necessarily macroscopic (statistical) in nature; i.e. individual atoms do not have temperature, pressure, or chemical potential.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, air is made of atoms...

Air is made of nothing. Tho sometimes atoms of smoke or food smells get stuck in it.

 

[JackRT]

Air is made of nothing. Tho sometimes atoms of smoke or food smells get stuck in it.

 

[Astrophile]

So much for the claim that those atoms who’s electrons are jumping up and down between energy states are in thermal equilibrium with its environment...... were they such they would not be gaining and loosing energy.

Atoms, molecules and electrons in a gas or plasma are colliding and exchanging energy as a result of these collisions. An atom or ion that gains energy (electron excitation) through a collision may lose it by emitting photons of radiation as the electron falls back to its ground state.